Correlation between increasing intelligence and atheism

MagicMarker

naldface wrote: »

Yes you did!

Nu uh!!! :rolleyes:

naldface

MagicMarker wrote: »

Nu uh!!! :rolleyes:

Do you know Fred Flintstone?

Seachmall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So now the religious should not be allowed to play any part in public life?

Once again, that was never said explicitly or implicitly.

I do not want someone who literally believes in the sacrament of the eucharist to be making judgement calls that will affect me.

Presumably someone who believes in such a literal interpretation of the Bible will have a problem with putting evolution over creationism. That is a huge problem for me and should be for everyone.

I have the right to vote based on my opinion of a candidate. My opinion will be affected by their political views as well as their religious views. If I feel the candidate's religion won't affect their actions if elected then their beliefs are of no importance to me but I will consider them. That is not bigoted, that is reasonable.

Some of the opinions being expressed on this thread are so stuck-up and bigotted its laughable

This kind of thing is exactly why I have such a problem with atheism , not the belief itself mind, just the attitude it fosters in some people.

You are coming to a conclusion about me, and presumably other atheists, that is not correct. That's not a problem with atheists.

I've specified in multiple threads that I don't generalize people based on their beliefs, I would appreciate the same. But you are entitled to your opinion, and I won't call you bigoted for it.

Cú Giobach

The word "belief" has been thrown around here a bit lately, folks, atheism is not a belief.

k.p.h

Theirs no point really, when you debate it in an understanding manner they still come along and say "oh your stuck up" and "thats condescending". I currently think the best way to avoid that is to start talking about the facts. If you question the things people believe in they can't come up with answers and it will maybe leave them with a few unanswered questions, and hopefully they will figure it out for themselves.

Seachmall

k.p.h wrote: »

Theirs no point really, when you debate it in an understanding manner they still come along and say "oh your stuck up" and "thats condescending". I currently think the best way to avoid that is to start talking about the facts. If you question the things people believe in they can't come up with answers and it will maybe leave them with a few unanswered questions, and hopefully they will figure it out for themselves.

Essentially we need more Christian Apologists. Christians who are willing to debate their position in an intelligent manner without resorting to unwarranted assumptions and accusations.

I never thought I'd argue we need more Apologists but at least they can take criticism and offer rebuttals allowing for an actual conversation or debate.

ed2hands

k.p.h wrote: »

Theirs no point really, when you debate it in an understanding manner they still come along and say "oh your stuck up" and "thats condescending".

I think you need to take a little look at the OP.

If some athiests stop being stuck up and condescending, then i presume people will stop observing that fact.

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

If some athiests stop being stuck up and condescending, then i presume people will stop observing that fact.

Stop generalizing atheists please.

Craebear

ed2hands wrote: »

If some athiests stop being stuck up and condescending, then i presume people will stop observing that fact.

Then theists should stop being so ****ing stupid and if they insist on being stupid they should stay home.

ed2hands

Oh here we go...

Theists...stupid
Athiests...our intellectual superiors.

I get the picture.

Seachmall

Oh here we go...

Theists...tolerating and humble
Athiests...arrogant and condescending

I get the picture.

CoolHat

Seachmall wrote: »

Oh here we go...

Theists...tolerating and humble
Athiests...arrogant and condescending

I get the picture.

In reality, you are talking about both sides.
There are religious and athiest people who just respect each others choices. It doesnt matter live and let live
Then, there are religious and athiests who refuse to live and let live and will debate the opposite side to the death. This thread is the latter.

This thread would be no different if is was called "Correlation between increasing good people and religious faith" - you'd call BS on that. And you'd be right No one could dare attribute that people of faith are better people than non-religious types. We got 7 billion people on this planet. No one can say that. Just like no one can say generally more athiests have more intelligence than people of faith

Nulty

In my understanding and atheist is someone who believes there is no god, an agnostic is someone who is unsure if there is a god....what do you call someone who doesn't give a **** one way or the other?


Got my answer:

Irreligious

Dr. Loon

CoolHat wrote: »

Live and let live... but i think thats hard for certain people to abide by.

Indeed. Funny enough, mostly religious people.

Cú Giobach

CoolHat wrote: »

In reality, you are talking about both sides.
There are religious and athiest people who just respect each others choices. It doesnt matter live and let live
Then, there are religious and athiests who refuse to live and let live and will debate the opposite side to the death. This thread is the latter.

Debate isn't a sign of disrespect, this very medium is for the debate and discussion of topics, (though there are people around who would rather is was full of nothing more than "you're ma" or "blast it with piss" comments).
People have been debating about the existence or not of gods for thousands of years, it's hardly going to stop now when more and more things that were believed to be works of deities are shown to be natural events.
The only thing left for a god now is "kicking off" the big bang and even that can be shown to not require an intelligence.

On the topic of the op, I would disagree with a connection between religious belief and intelligence, knowledge yes but intelligence no.
The oft asked questions in debates about deities are an example, people with no idea about Quantum mechanics, nucleosynthesis or special relativity** are the ones who will hold up their hands and ask "where does the universe come from?"..... "but how can something come from nothing?" or "who or what caused the big bang then?", and infer the existence of a god because of a lack of knowledge even though they could be highly intelligent.

** Quantum mechanics to understand how particles can spontaneously appear out of nothing.
Nucleosynthesis to understand how matter is changed from one form to another.
Special Relativity to understand how the question "what started the big bang?" has no meaning.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Where do atheists believe the universe came from?

A singularity. Where THAT came from however is still an open question and one our best minds are currently working on.

I understand the motivation behind that question however, even if they are not your motivations personally.

Many people are uncomfortable, if not even mortally terrified, to say "We do not know the answer to that". So they happily make up answers where none are available (like the idea of god for example).

Worth noting however, us not having an answer to that question does not in any way lend credence to anyone else who does. Take this simply analogous conversation to highlight what I mean.

Young Boy 1: Where do Babies come from?
Young Boy 2: The stork brings them.
Young Boy 1: How do you know this?
Young Boy 2: Well where do you think they come from?
Young Boy 1: I have no idea.
Young Boy 2: Aha! See! That means the stork DOES bring them!

We can both clearly see how ridiculous the line of reasoning on offer from Boy 2 is above. His idea has no evidence and it is wrong. The fact that Boy 1 has no answer of his own is NOT evidence that Boy 2's claims are right or even credible.

However people espousing religious beliefs happily often use the same line of reasoning as if there is nothing wrong with it at all!

They claim god created the universe, then ask "Where do atheists think it came from?". They then act like the "We do not know" answer they receive somehow evidences their own claims.

It does not. At all.

nozzferrahhtoo

CoolHat wrote: »

you know what, no person on this planet has the right to tell me to what to believe

Entirely True in my opinion.

CoolHat wrote: »

No one has to the right to tell me i'm wrong.

Entirely False in my opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So now the religious should not be allowed to play any part in public life?

Not what is being said at all. The comments here are not about whether they can be involved but HOW they can be involved.

I use the same analogy often because I think it most illuminates the issue compared to any other. So I will trot it out again:

Imagine you work in some hall of power, eduacation or science. People come before you every day trying to get you to change or set policy and they give you their arguments as to how and why they want it changed.

Now imagine a guy came in with a sheet full of statistics and he tried to dictate policy ideas to you based on the sheet. Naturally you look at the sheet and try to ascertain the origin or the statistics, what they are based on and how they came about. The details however are not there.

When you ask for those details the holder of the page adamantly refuses to enlighten you. Instead he keeps saying you should respect his sheet because he accepts it on faith. He gets offended when you refuse to simply accept the page of random numbers as fact. He then continues to dictate policy based on the sheet of paper.

Naturally you will reject his ideas because the basis for them is entirely unsubstantiated. It is just a page of apparently made up numbers and the holder refuses to substantiate them in any way. You are perfectly justified in telling the guy to go away until he can either come back with better arguments OR he can substantiate the arguments he has presented to you already.

This is exactly how we want religion to be treated. The core claims of religion are entirely unsubstantiated. You are perfectly welcome to have your page of numbers. I am perfectly justified in rejecting it however.

As long as you insist on refusing to even attempt to substantiate the claims of a religion... such as the idea that a god exists... you are essentially waving a page of made up statistics at us and expecting us to pander to them. We will not. Ever.

So no that is not to say "the religious should not be allowed to play any part in public life" at all. It is to say that they can play just as much part as we can, they just can not wave around their made up page of numbers at us and expect us to pander to them, or even take them seriously.

If however you have any reason to offer why entirely unsubstantiated claims should be taken into account when setting public policy and law, I am all ears. I would be curious how you intend to differentiate between unsubstantiated claims however, how you will choose which ones to pander to and which ones to reject, and how we will avoid people simply making things up to get their way.

cournioni

I'm sitting on the fence on this one... with my Agnostic cap on. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

If some athiests stop being stuck up and condescending, then i presume people will stop observing that fact.

I doubt it, mainly because even the ones who are in NO way being "stuck up" end up STILL being called "stuck up".

The reason for this is simple. People find it easier to play the player and not the ball. Ad Hominem is the easiest weapon to reach for.

So if people come out with arguments that one can not deal with, then one is inclined to throw out insults like "stuck up" in order to avoid dealing with the arguments that have bested them.

Name calling is easy. We learn it from around age 4. Any 4 year old can do it. When the arguments become too sophisticated it is easier to deal with them by reaching to a weapon so basic that any 4 year old can do it, and start name calling.

I have written scathing posts in the past. I have written toneless ones. I have written posts that almost drip with the honey of being sweetness and light. Irregardless of the tone of my posts I am still often called names simply because my post disagrees with the person in question and rather than deal with what I wrote, they find it easier to throw out insults.

One rule worth learning in life however which these people break is: Insults demean only the insulter. NEVER the target. Ever.

Seachmall

CoolHat wrote: »

This thread would be no different if is was called "Correlation between increasing good people and religious faith" - you'd call BS on that.

I wouldn't call that BS. I can see plenty of reasons why someone of religious faith might be better behaved than someone of no faith, but those reasons don't pan out in the real world. That is the only reason I'd reject that claim, unless there was evidence to back it up.

Just like no one can say generally more athiests have more intelligence than people of faith

See this is the problem. You're rejecting the apparent correlation because you disagree with it.

You cannot disagree with the statistics. You can question their source and validity but you cannot simply just shrug them off.

The difference between these 2 statements:

"Correlation between increasing good people and religious faith"
"Correlation between increasing intelligence and atheism"

Is evidence. It might be out there and if it is I'd be very interested in seeing it.

CoolHat

CoolHat wrote: »

I see. Well lets take what you say on board.

Then that means one can think athiests are nothing more than stuck up as*holes who because of their chosen faith are automatically "better" than people of faith. People who tend to fight to the death to prove themselves to be right about the lack of god... who, in turn, act like religious manics with their die-hard fanitics.

Atheism is not a 'chosen faith' or any kind of faith. It's a lack of faith.

I really have to call you out on this one. How many atheists blow themselves up in crowded markets or actively claim that people who disagree with them deserve death or eternal punishment?

Meanwhile, worst an atheist can do to you is use words to criticise your claims, and they're labelled 'militant', 'arrogant', 'condescending' and 'intolerant'.

Right.

CoolHat wrote:

Seems you have a right to judge someone, say they are wrong, have no respect for someones choice. Because you have a 'right' to.

None of us would walk into a church and berate parishioners. In fact, I dare say none of us would actively bring up the topic of religion. However, when someone else says something we disagree with, contains logical fallacies or is at odds with currently established scientific knowledge, do we not have a duty to correct them? If I say something stupid, I want people to correct me and show me where I've made my mistake; by doing this, I can understand my error and modify my stance accordingly, and the net understanding of the universe increases. I wish people of faith would discuss these topics rationally, instead of claiming that we have no right to criticise their personal beliefs. If it were a political belief, it would be socially acceptable; what's so different about faith?

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I doubt it, mainly because even the ones who are in NO way being "stuck up" end up STILL being called "stuck up".

The reason for this is simple. People find it easier to play the player and not the ball. Ad Hominem is the easiest weapon to reach for.

Didn't have a clue what Ad Hominem even was until a few months ago when i joined boards.
But i'm afraid they will be quite frequent and forthcoming when you find one group of people claiming to have actual evidence of intellectual superiority over another group and waving it in their faces so to speak. Because let's be clear, that's what this thread is based around.

So, in a discussion (or to use your analagy, a ballgame) like this, some players may not be interested in playing ballsports just now with some other players who have stated quite clearly that in general, they think their team, the coaching staff, the managers, and all their fans are intellectually superior. The players have mentioned this in the tunnel just before kick-off.
It's unsurprising then, that you're going to have players from the other team saying, "Hold on a minute, WTF!, I'd rather go read a book than play with these guys as they've just insulted the intelligence of the team i'm lining out for".
You'll also have players who will happily play the game in a fair manner in spite of the pre-match comments.
And yes of course you'll have players (on both sides mind) who play the game, but come in with the odd crunching tackle or two for the self-styled Ronaldo's who do a few fancy step-overs, dribbles and shimmys out on the wing. That football mate.
It's important to remember though that the scoreline of the game will inevitably turn out to be a draw because the game cannot be won or lost; and so it should be if you ask me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So if people come out with arguments that one can not deal with, then one is inclined to throw out insults like "stuck up" in order to avoid dealing with the arguments that have bested them.

I don't think you're stuck up by the way. I think some of the arguments are. And maybe we should get away from the question of who has bested who. I'm an agnostic so i just don't know very much:pac: but i have a feeling no-one has really bested anyone.
You've been enlightening us (very respectfully for the most part) but you're more or less doing what many many athiests do in arguing their case. Asking for evidence.
Evidence evidence evidence evidence. That's usually what these arguments boil down to. The endless request for hard evidence. Don't have hard evidence? Oh dear. What a fool you must feel.
(yea yea strawman)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Name calling is easy. We learn it from around age 4. Any 4 year old can do it. When the arguments become too sophisticated it is easier to deal with them by reaching to a weapon so basic that any 4 year old can do it, and start name calling.

Yes quite true, any 4 year old can do that. Plenty of name calling goes on on both sides. I suppose adults can name call too when the occasion fits, and not just when the argument becomes "too sophisticated". I take your point though.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have written scathing posts in the past. I have written toneless ones. I have written posts that almost drip with the honey of being sweetness and light. Irregardless of the tone of my posts I am still often called names simply because my post disagrees with the person in question and rather than deal with what I wrote, they find it easier to throw out insults.

Do you need a tissue?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One rule worth learning in life however which these people break is: Insults demean only the insulter. NEVER the target. Ever.

Tell that to the minority of people who insult the intelligence of theists then. Doubt they'll listen though as they're too stuck up.;)

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

when you find one group of people having actual evidence of intellectual superiority

I'm not constantly making this point to be a dick but there's a problem with society when people simply choose to "disagree" with evidence, statistical or otherwise, because it doesn't fit their world view or feel that it's not politically correct to make the point.

People can be sceptical of the findings, read the papers and find other explanations for the apparent correlation or question the validity of the statistics themselves but people aren't doing that. People are simply saying "No, don't agree with it" or something similar.

This is willful ignorance and entirely worth criticizing.

The statistics or correlation may be wrong, it's entirely possible, but to say they are, or probably are, wrong with no counter-argument or evidence is down right stupid.

This type of thinking is more of a bane on our society than obnoxious atheists could ever be.

And people are happy to let it slide.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

But i'm afraid they will be quite frequent and forthcoming when you find one group of people claiming to have actual evidence of intellectual superiority over another group and waving it in their faces so to speak. Because let's be clear, that's what this thread is based around.

The thread is indeed about the correlation which has been found. I see no problem with that. Such correlations are worth looking into. However as per my first post on the thread it would be dangerous to read too much into them. I think the correlation is valid and informative, but one should not jump to the conclusion that this means religious belief is synonymous with stupidity which thankfully not to many people have suggested.

ed2hands wrote: »

I don't think you're stuck up by the way. I think some of the arguments are. And maybe we should get away from the question of who has bested who.

My comments were general, and not personal about any one person on this thread or others. I am merely pointing out that this is a realm of discourse where the people making the claims (such as there is a god) are doing so without a shred of evidence to substantiate the claim. Therefore people will likely point out that lack of evidence. Regardless of how, or in what tone, they point this out in... the people without evidence are more likely to throw insults around than say "look, you are right, I have no reason at all to believe what I do and my position is entirely baseless".

ed2hands wrote: »

you're more or less doing what many many athiests do in arguing their case. Asking for evidence.
Evidence evidence evidence evidence. That's usually what these arguments boil down to. The endless request for hard evidence. Don't have hard evidence? Oh dear. What a fool you must feel.

If you do a search on my username and the word evidence you will find what I actually ask for when people claim there is a god is "Any evidence, data, arguments OR reasons to lend any credence at all to the claim". So no, I do not limit myself to ask for just "evidence". I ask for literally anything at all that would elevate the claim beyond that of pure fantasy.

I think therefore I am being more open than most in what I am asking for. Regardless I am repaid for my openness with the same thing people who go around just asking for "proof" are. Nothing. There simply appears to be nothing at all that lends even a modicum of credence to the claims. This is more than a small problem as it puts the claim on the same level as.... well anything I sit here and simply make up on the spot, no matter how ridiculous my fantasy claim may be.

ed2hands wrote: »

Do you need a tissue?

I feel a snide question like this adds nothing. It is a genuine problem that people ignore arguments and cop out of them by responding only with insults. This is an issue we suffer from and snideness in questions such as this does not help, add anything, or bypass the issue. It is in fact an example of the very issue of which I speak and makes my point for me.

ed2hands

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not constantly making this point to be a dick but there's a problem with society when people simply choose to "disagree" with evidence, statistical or otherwise, because it doesn't fit their world view or feel that it's not politically correct to make the point.

You're missing the point.
People are choosing to disregard it because it's a pointless exercise in one-upmanship on a par with a study that finds one race to be more intelligent than another. It's just embarrassing and disrespectful if you ask me to be harping on about it.

Seachmall wrote: »

This type of thinking is more of a bane on our society than obnoxious atheists could ever be.

And people are happy to let it slide.

People are happy to let it slide because it's demeaning to both sides IMO.

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

You're missing the point.
People are choosing to disregard it because it's a pointless exercise in one-upmanship on a par with a study that finds one race to be more intelligent than another. It's just embarrassing and disrespectful if you ask me to be harping on about it.



People are happy to let it slide because it's demeaning to both sides IMO.

The attitude is demeaning both sides. The apparent correlation is still there.

If people are dismissing the findings because they think I'm a dick then they're idiots.
If people are dismissing the findings because it doesn't fit with their world view then they're idiots.

End of.

You can only dismiss the findings by looking at the paper and finding a flaw in the logic or a flaw in the research.

Anything else is idiocy.

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I feel a snide question like this adds nothing. It is a genuine problem that people ignore arguments and cop out of them by responding only with insults. This is an issue we suffer from and snideness in questions such as this does not help, add anything, or bypass the issue. It is in fact an example of the very issue of which I speak and makes my point for me.

You should watch the tone of some of your posts then and stop being condescending towards theism. You shouldn't be surprised if you get a bit of ribbing for complaining of persecution when you've taken the position you have to be frank.

Sam Vimes

ed2hands wrote: »

You're missing the point.
People are choosing to disregard it because it's a pointless exercise in one-upmanship on a par with a study that finds one race to be more intelligent than another. It's just embarrassing and disrespectful if you ask me to be harping on about it.



People are happy to let it slide because it's demeaning to both sides IMO.

Right so you think it's embarrassing and disrespectful to harp on about it but you're not actually questioning the accuracy of the results?

ed2hands

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so you think it's embarrassing and disrespectful to harp on about it but you're not actually questioning the accuracy of the results?

I haven't even glanced at any of the links for those results.